I think everyone is ignoring the balance issue

If I spend all my money on the biggest navy possible, it doesn't matter anymore if I have a land army, I only need one to "island hop" all the weak undefended settlements and lock the enemy within their own settlements.

Meaning warhammer 40k, the game that revolves mainly around land battles and epic land units, becomes useless if I have a better space navy.

Therefore, either CA is likely going to go for a plannet map, but that automatically also means there won't be any unique and cool chapters, because all factions in the 40k galaxy don't all visit one planet.

Or its going to "island battles" all the way, which as you know, I'm totally fine with, and more a supporter of, as I love 40k for the land units and vast galaxy.

I don't think that is realistic.

Unless you have overwhelming naval force.

First you would need to secure every Planet with your Fleet at the same time. Mind you that controlling the nothingness of Space doesn't give income, but the Planet below does.

So you have to spend alot of Money to occupy Space, which gives you none, until you actually conquer the Planet.

So it would to be better to balance Fleet and Army so that you can actually conquer the Planet to have income from it.

Then we probably would also look at things that are on the Planet but can shoot at fleets give them attrition (and perhaps be active abilities during fighting). So you not only have enough ships to occupy the Space (or the Space Stations if we have them) but also need Ships to circle in and out to aviod loses through attirion.

Then there is another easy way to make this practical impossible. Have all Plantes 2 Space battle, one for each side of the Planet. Means you would need double the Fleet to cover all and Enemy fleets would be, even if beaten, still be around to be a threat.

In short, I think the though that you would simply have enough Navy to make Land battles obsolete is not realistic. You need basically the ability to siege every city of your enemies at the same time and as long the enemy has more then 1-2, that isn't realistic unless the enemy is very small.

Also there could be plenty of potential race mechanics that would allow for enemy "bound" on Planet to still strike you. Cultist, Webgates. Calls for Help or whatever.

I simply want to raise the concern that adding space navies will enable players to spend all their money on space navies, making it so land battles become obsolete, as you only need a handful of units to take the enemy minor settlements while locking them in their cities with your fleets, bleeding their economy dry until their economy collapses.

So maybe, space navies could be tied to land units, meaning yes there are space navies, but they aren't their own branch. So if i have a space marine unit, it grants me 1 cruiser, 1 terminator grants me 1 battleship. So land armies become space navies. 

But that still is an ugly solution, as that would take away from the land battles 40k is known for.

As I have pointed out, that isn't plausible.

Blockading the enemy everywhere doesn't make you money. Conqueror does.

unless you have already overwhelming force, it will be better for you to be able to actual conquer the Planet your fleet clears. If you have overwhelming force then you can probably auto-resolve confidently. 

The Idea that "one unit SM give one Cruiser, One terminator unit gives one battleship" is with all due respect terrible idea.

It would either mean you have to recruit your navy to fit your land battles or the other way around. both would cripple them. let alone that unit type variety doesn't reflect this anyway.

They could be "tied" together that a Land army has always a transport fleet. The later with minimal combat power. But tieing your land and space recruitment together is a terrible idea.

torak8988#3885 wrote:

I simply want to raise the concern that adding space navies will enable players to spend all their money on space navies, making it so land battles become obsolete, as you only need a handful of units to take the enemy minor settlements while locking them in their cities with your fleets, bleeding their economy dry until their economy collapses.

So maybe, space navies could be tied to land units, meaning yes there are space navies, but they aren't their own branch. So if i have a space marine unit, it grants me 1 cruiser, 1 terminator grants me 1 battleship. So land armies become space navies. 

But that still is an ugly solution, as that would take away from the land battles 40k is known for.

CA would simply design the game differently to how you are imagining it.

The Navy end of things would deal with space battles, while to take down planets you would need regular armies to be transported down.. as it happens in 40k.

torak8988#3885 wrote:

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

torak8988#3885 wrote:

I simply want to raise the concern that adding space navies will enable players to spend all their money on space navies, making it so land battles become obsolete, as you only need a handful of units to take the enemy minor settlements while locking them in their cities with your fleets, bleeding their economy dry until their economy collapses.

So maybe, space navies could be tied to land units, meaning yes there are space navies, but they aren't their own branch. So if i have a space marine unit, it grants me 1 cruiser, 1 terminator grants me 1 battleship. So land armies become space navies. 

But that still is an ugly solution, as that would take away from the land battles 40k is known for.

CA would simply design the game differently to how you are imagining it.

The Navy end of things would deal with space battles, while to take down planets you would need regular armies to be transported down.. as it happens in 40k.

exactly, so if I invest everything into the navy, I don't care about land battles anymore

I can crush the enemy space navy

Keep them locked in their planets

and then use a single weaker army to attack all weakly defended settlements one by one

and only bother with the heavily defended ones once their economy is sufficiently starved or until I sell a part of my navy and build up a sufficient force to take it

the bottom line is: adding a space navy run on the same money as the land army will make the space navy the primary priority and the land army a secondary one

when again, 40k is very well known for the land armies, not the space navies

a way to solve this is to either have the space navy run on a different income source, or have the units represent ships, so armies can still move around the galaxy, but when they fight one another in space, the land units transform into ships

if you don't mind the space navy overpowering the need for land armies, then it is wiser to just play gothic armada

if this concept is too difficult you people to fathom, think about why the british significantly prioritised the navy in their global empire over the land army. Its because if they crush the navy of their compeditors, they have free reign to prevent all their other territories from being threatend, while at the same time being able to strike at any coastline they desire. Its not rocket science. And in space, this concept is taken into the extreme as there is no land to travel between planets, if you don't have a superior space navy, you are locked out of defending your empire.

How can a Navy take over a planet? The Navy is there to carry troops to take over planets, that's their job. I'm interested as to why you are creating a narrative that doesn't exist, as if, it's an absolute that you can use your Navy to destroy systems and not even deploy for a land battle. This is a narrative that exists in your head, not in the designer's head. You are aware that the system I'm describing existed in Empire TW? You could block the enemies ports and put them under a severe disadvantage, however, you still required land battles and it is not like you couldn't counter the opposing player's Navy.

Yes, I like many other people in here understand the history of the British Navy, I also understand that while it was an advantage it was not the all conquering leviathan you think it is. We still had to have land battles against France and her allies during the Napolean period didn't we? Did we avoid land battles in WW1?

More to the point, Horus had the largest Navy the literal universe had seen for the known history of the IoM, yet, he still had to focus on land battles, due to the nature of the shields and defenses used.

You appear to be thinking of a possible problem but, thinking it can't be solved with some reasonable solutions, do not worry, your opponent has a Navy, you have a Navy but, you will also need an army to take and hold the planet. 

Alright, let me put it really simple so you can understand.

You want to comquer my territory.

I put all my funds into the navy.

I crush your navy because 100% of my income goes to the navy, while you need to spend 50% to build an army that can take my planets.

I crush your navy and now your armies can no longer leave your planets.

And thats it. No land battles, no signature 40k fights. Just me with a huge navy locking you out of moving around in the galaxy.

And you know what? Since I have free reign through your empire, Im going to build a tiny army of essentially peasants that goes around your empire taking your undefended minor settlements.

After taking multiple minor settlements you have no economy anymore, youre still locked in your planets and there is nothing you can do about it. Enjoy, 40k without land battles because the space navy dominates all.

Solutions?

- No space navies, land armies travel around the galaxy doing "island battles". Resulting in 40ks most famous units seeing use 100% of the battles.

- Land units in an army represent a space ship in space battles. So the land army is the space navy at the same time.

- Space navies are built and maintained with a seperate own currency.

torak8988#3885 wrote:

Alright, let me put it really simple so you can understand.

You want to comquer my territory.

I put all my funds into the navy.

I crush your navy because 100% of my income goes to the navy, while you need to spend 50% to build an army that can take my planets.

I crush your navy and now your armies can no longer leave your planets.

And thats it. No land battles, no signature 40k fights. Just me with a huge navy locking you out of moving around in the galaxy.

And you know what? Since I have free reign through your empire, Im going to build a tiny army of essentially peasants that goes around your empire taking your undefended minor settlements.

After taking multiple minor settlements you have no economy anymore, youre still locked in your planets and there is nothing you can do about it. Enjoy, 40k without land battles because the space navy dominates all.

Solutions?

- No space navies, land armies travel around the galaxy doing "island battles". Resulting in 40ks most famous units seeing use 100% of the battles.

- Land units in an army represent a space ship in space battles. So the land army is the space navy at the same time.

- Space navies are built and maintained with a seperate own currency.

So, you are under the impression that you or the AI can build a Navy so vastly bigger than every one else you can ignore the following issues.

-blocking one planet with your navy won’t destroy the entire enemy or other local enemies.

-They (ai other players) can also build large Navies.

-In the early game defense will beat attack.

-If I place my Navy over a single planet, what’s defending my planets? What if the event can hold out for long periods?

-As mentioned, Navies can have little affect on the planet’s surface due to void shields so, you do need to balance between a Navy and an army.

*Most importantly, any perceived problem you can think of, CA can sort it out with, I don’t know, 5 minutes thought on the matter.

This is not the game breaking issue you think it is.

What Davedave1124 said + the fact that if you looked at EaW, you would know that this tactic wouldn't be pragmatic.

Play EaW, where you can test your "brillant theory" and come back to me.

torak8988#3885 wrote:

I'm just saying, if two empires are equally matched, and navies and land armies both use the same currency

I can spend 100% of my income on the navy, which will obliterate the enemy navy the more they invest in a land army

meaning there is a arms race on who can build the biggest navy, because without one, the enemy can roam around through your empire, know where you build your ships and then put a bigger fleet next to it to prevent them from leaving the planet, and you can forget pushing on the counter attack without naval supremacy as your ships and armies can't leave planets

which means the navy becomes the absolute first priority, and the land army is rather trivial

you only start building land units once you have naval supremacy, and you don't need to bother with building elite units, as some crappy force that can take a minor settlement is enough to step by step cripple the entire enemy empire

I don't know empire at war, I know total war and in total war you can just walk past enemy settlements and target their weaker ones without penalty

Ok, build a huge navy without a significant army, find you can’t successfully make landfall, make no planetary gains and don’t expand your resource acquisition. On the other hand others create balanced fleets and armies acquire further resources and financially outperform your empire.

You think you’ve got an invincible tactic in a very specific game that exists in your head and not in the head of the CA design team.

SiWI#8629 wrote:

Play EaW, where you can test your "brillant theory" and come back to me.

Do i need to state the obvious?

This is total war we are talking about not whatever Eaw is

torak8988#3885 wrote:

SiWI#8629 wrote:

Play EaW, where you can test your "brillant theory" and come back to me.

Do i need to state the obvious?

This is total war we are talking about not whatever Eaw is

First, I have literally posted what EaW is, second, if you have no idea what EaW is, how can you judge it to be too different from TW?

Especially since your suppose concern is being demonstrates in the game, just not with the result your supposedly expect.

torak8988#3885 wrote:

davedave1124#4773 wrote:

torak8988#3885 wrote:

I'm just saying, if two empires are equally matched, and navies and land armies both use the same currency

I can spend 100% of my income on the navy, which will obliterate the enemy navy the more they invest in a land army

meaning there is a arms race on who can build the biggest navy, because without one, the enemy can roam around through your empire, know where you build your ships and then put a bigger fleet next to it to prevent them from leaving the planet, and you can forget pushing on the counter attack without naval supremacy as your ships and armies can't leave planets

which means the navy becomes the absolute first priority, and the land army is rather trivial

you only start building land units once you have naval supremacy, and you don't need to bother with building elite units, as some crappy force that can take a minor settlement is enough to step by step cripple the entire enemy empire

I don't know empire at war, I know total war and in total war you can just walk past enemy settlements and target their weaker ones without penalty

Ok, build a huge navy without a significant army, find you can’t successfully make landfall, make no planetary gains and don’t expand your resource acquisition. On the other hand others create balanced fleets and armies acquire further resources and financially outperform your empire.

You think you’ve got an invincible tactic in a very specific game that exists in your head and not in the head of the CA design team.

Im surprised my story is so hard for people to comprehend do you people even play total war? Or am i talking to people who have only played stuff like EaW? If i have the biggest navy

you can never leave your planets

You can never attack my settlements

You can never reinforce your planets

And i have free reign to strike whatever defenseless settlement you have

I feel like im talking to toddlers and i have to endlessly repeat myself, how many hours, if any, do you even have in total war. How is the basic concept of naval supremacy so complicated to understand? How is it so hard to comprehend just sailing PAST a well

defended settlement and targeting the weaker ones?

Who cares about a land army, i can take a minor settlement with 8 militia units in wh3, so i only need 8 militia units to take 70% of someones empire lmao

Sure it takes a while but that doesnt matter when i can hold my opponent hostage. 

All because they didnt invest more in their navy.

Elite ground units like tanks or space marines? Dont need em, I can take 70% of someones empire and then force them an ugly peace treaty. Starve them economically and eventually build a real land army to take what remains.

It is so rich that you accuse others of begin toddlers, even it is clear that you research 40k by Browsing GW Store.

I played TW since M1.

I wouldn't be surprise that you playing TW is just a lie.

Otherwise you know that problem "exist" in TW Empire in theory but in praxis, it doesn't because it is simply not a pragmatic tactic. 

torak8988#3885 wrote:

SiWI#8629 wrote:

torak8988#3885 wrote:

SiWI#8629 wrote:

Play EaW, where you can test your "brillant theory" and come back to me.

Do i need to state the obvious?

This is total war we are talking about not whatever Eaw is

First, I have literally posted what EaW is, second, if you have no idea what EaW is, how can you judge it to be too different from TW?

Especially since your suppose concern is being demonstrates in the game, just not with the result your supposedly expect.

News flash, this is a total war forum, talking about total war, in a total war campaign engine. Not EaW

You can stop trolling me already lmao this is getting stupid

New flash to you: when discussion TW and especially potential new TW's, other games will be brought up to compare them to.

I know this is hard to understand for you, as are probably many things in life hard to understand to you.